Long before (1882) anxiety about Muslims, Americans feared the 'yellow peril' of Chinese immigration

[pampango]

?itok=B05odCKf

Donald Trump’s proposal to ban an entire class of people from entering the United States is not without precedent.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 banned all Chinese from coming to America, with a handful of exceptions: merchants, teachers, students, travelers and diplomats.

“This is the beginning of what Chinese in America call the reign of terror,” says Lee, because it legitimized discrimination. “[It’s] a period where there’s no integration. They’re banned from becoming naturalized citizens as well. They create an underground economy and shadow society. It’s really bound to the confines of ethnic Chinatowns. There’s informal segregation that bans Chinese from moving into certain areas. There’s formal discrimination banning them from certain occupations. There’s anti-miscegenation laws.”

“As a historian,” Lee concludes, “I try to think about the ways in which we as a country can learn from the mistakes of the past, and perhaps use our history to illuminate complicated issues, and make sure that we can move forward in the right way. I never thought I would stand before my students — like I did yesterday — and say that the current immigration proposals make the egregious Chinese Exclusion Act ... look better than what we’re talking about today.”

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-09/long-anxiety-about-muslims-americans-feared-yellow-peril-chinese-immigration

And 40 years before the hysteria about Chinese immigrants that resulted in the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Know Nothings pushed anti-Catholic immigration laws.

In the 1920's republicans passed 2 more restrictive immigration laws.

There is nothing new under the sun with xenophobes.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. And the 1% was at fault then, and we suck up to them still, avoiding the reason why they come,

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[patsimp]

2. i'm so tired of this 'only a small few are radical' argument

the 1% number is pulled out of thin air. In the case of the two killers in LA, the news appears to be that they planned attacks with a third person - a neighbor. What a coincidence that such a small number of potentially violent islamists, and they happened to be neighbors.

I don't agree with trump, but to continue to ignore the problem of islamist radicals that are killing innocent people in the counties that they live in is horrific.

btw - even 1% of 1.5 billion is a very large number.

[pampango]

3. It is tough to blame the 99.9% for the sins of the 0.01% in any endeavor. n/t

[patsimp]

4. i don't believe its 1% -

and from my conversations with muslims the number is much higher, especially if you factor in the 'I don't agree with the methods, but I understand why they would become terrorists'.

Consider that the number of ISIS foreign fighters has swelled to over 20,000 in the past year alone. these are fighters who grew up in middle class to rich families in France, the US, England and who have decided that killing a bunch of innocent people is their ticket into heaven.

[pampango]

5. Not knowing what you believe the percentage is, it's hard to argue with that fear.

Using the number of foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria to argue against accepting refugees families into the US is something I would expect from Trump - with whom you do not agree.

[mainer]

6. I'm unclear on your stance. Are you for Japanese internment?

Are you for the Chinese exclusion act, the Catholic exclusion, the whatever exclusion act? Because it sounds like you justify exclusion of (name your minority here) because of the incredibly small possibility that SOME part of that hated group might be violent?

[treestar]

13. It's really sad to see the justification for

prejudice against a group of people and the claim that it is PC to avoid it. That's in essence what they are doing. Complaining it is PC to dislike an entire group and blame them all for the acts of a few and then suddenly they have this thing about Muslims, and they use terrorism as an excuse to be able to hate them as a group. It's like they are relieved. They are "afraid" to admit they are racist against other groups, but think that due to terrorism, this is a group finally they can hate without that PC crowd going on about it.

[former9thward]

7. The Immigration Act of 1924 banned many classes of immigrants.

The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans. In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. The law had strong bi-partisan support and was supported by Samuel Gompers the founder of the AFL. It remained in effect until 1965.

[pampango]

10. Yes. The 1924 Act passed under Coolidge and a republican congress. The 1965 Act reversed it.

The 1965 Immigration Act was passed under LBJ and a Democratic congress.

The 1924 Act was actually the second restrictive immigration law after republican won the presidency and control of congress in 1920. In 1921 one of their first actions was restrict immigration with the Emergency Quota Act. There has always been some bipartisan support for restricting immigration but republicans have always led the way - and still do.

[former9thward]

11. I guess you are forgetting a couple things.

Almost all Democrats in 1924 voted for the Act. All during FDR's administration there was a Democratic president and Democratic congress's. There was no attempt to repeal it. I guess that doesn't count, right? During Truman's time, Eisenhower's time and JFK's time there were Democratic congress's. No one made an attempt to repeal it. I guess that doesn't count in your version of history...

Nah, you didn't forget this....

[pampango]

12. History shows that Democrats don't always liberalize immigration laws but republicans never do.

In the last 100 years when legal immigration is expanded, it is under Democrats. Of course, FDR did repeal the Chinese Exclusion Act so he did expand legal immigration though the 1924 Act was not repealed.

Isolationism was widespread in the 1920's with republicans leading the way in reducing immigration, trade and other forms of international cooperation (like not joining the League of Nations). Too many Democrats did join republicans in the 1920's. While FDR did much to reverse the isolationism of the 1920's in trade and international cooperation, he did less on immigration. The big liberalization of immigration laws would not happen until 1965. Republicans fought it even then, but lost to LBJ and the Democratic congress.

[yuiyoshida]

8. If I remember right, this took place AFTER the Chinese

helped Build the American Railroad....








I wonder how many Chinese Americans in this country have ancestors who worked on these tracks. DO you know that after the great earthquake of 1906, Chinese helped rebuild San Francisco but when it came time for building their places in the City, the city officials told them to go to hell.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5337215

[hobbit709]

9. And before that it was the Irish.